click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
was finally put in place by the f.b.i. after so-called underwear bomber tried to blow up the airplane in which he was traveling as it flew over detroit on christmas day, 2009. and was advise of his mir and da rights. the c.i.a. interrogation program that might have handleled the interview had by then been dismantled by president obama. at the behest of such muslim brotherhood affiliated groups as the council on american islamic relations, and the islamic society of north america, and other self-proclaimed spokesmen for merican muslim, the f.b.i. has battlerized its train materials. does this delicacy infect the f.b.i.'s interrogation group as well? will we see another performance like the army's after-action report following major d.a. nidal hasan's rampage at fort hood in 2009, proceeded by his report alahu akbar, a that spoke nothing of militant islam, but referred to the incident as workplace violence. if tone is set at the top, recall that the army chief of staff at the time said the most tragic result of fort hood would be if it interfered with he army's diversity program. presumably the
with their financial affairs, the v.a. sends their name to the f.b.i. and they go on a nics list. and all of a sudden that takes away their second amendment right to own a gun. and it says that be in that lives in that house -- so it could be a spouse, it could be a child, it could be an adult child, for that fact -- also cannot own a firearm because the -- the -- the ruling says there can't be a firearm in th the -- in the -- in the residence. clearly, an appropriate determination if a veteran or any other american is found to be a harm to themselves or has a -- a mental disability, that we would all agree should disqualify them from gun ownership. now, let me say for the purposes of my colleagues and for the american people, this is not the standard that we currently apply at the veterans administration. we look at a veteran who's served his country and we say, you can't balance your checkbook so we're going to assign a fiduciary to you to balance your checkbook. you can't own a firearm. think about this. the fiduciary may be the spouse and all of a sudden that name goes to the nics list. why? beca
that the f.b.i. maintains, depends on the states sending information to the f.b.i. that they could use to screen out gun buyers. as a matter of fact, the shooter at the virginia tech had been adjudicated mentally ill by the state of virginia, but that information was never forwarded to the f.b.i. to be used on a background check. so he could therefore purchase weapons without a hit occurring on the nics background check system. after 2008, we passed legislation encourage the states, trying to incentivize them to send the information to the f.b.i. so that wouldn't happen again. and we know from the general accountability of course, the g.a.o., that the report of compliance with that law is dismal indeed. many states just simply haven't done it. i believe there are things we can do to further incentivize the states to send that information so that the background check system maintained by the f.b.i. actually works to preclude shooters like the virginia tech shooter from legally buying weapons because there would be a hit on the background check system, and he would be stopped from that s
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3